San Francisco afraid to enforce buffer zone ordinance; Planned Parenthood ticked
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s June 26 decision striking down Massachusetts’ 35-foot buffer zone law, the City of San Francisco has become squishy about enforcing its buffer zone ordinance, ticking off Planned Parenthood in the process.
San Francisco’s ordinance, which bans abortion opponents from entering a 25-foot line of demarcation around abortion clinics, is “virtually identical” to Massachusetts’ now voided law, minus 10 feet.
Now, San Francisco pro-life activists are allegedly feeling their oats and defying the ordinance by crossing the line.
Meanwhile, city attorneys are rightfully worried that enforcing the ordinance will draw pro-life ire and a lawsuit.
So they’ve chosen instead to withstand pro-abortion ire by ignoring the pro-life provocateurs, which has resulted in a letter of complaint from Planned Parenthood. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, July 27:
Planned Parenthood executives say San Francisco police and the city attorney aren’t doing enough to protect patients and staff from “harassment and intimidation” at the organization’s health center on Valencia Street [pictured above].
“Each week, as the harassment and intimidation escalate… the city’s ordinances are violated ever more flagrantly,” Planned Parenthood’s Bay Area chapter leader, Heather Saunders Estes,wrote in a July 22 letter to City Attorney Dennis Herrera.
And when center staffers call police, they are told that “there is nothing they can do,” Saunders Estes wrote….
The protesters now ignore San Francisco’s 25-foot buffer zone as they pass out literature, and film staffers and patients entering the building, clinic reps complain.
While other California cities “have come out in strong defense of their ordinances,” Saunders Estes told Herrera, “your office continues to dither.”
In response, Herrera said his office shares “some of the understandable bitterness and disappointment” over the Supreme Court ruling and is working with legal experts elsewhere to figure out how to respond.
The real fear, according to insiders, is that defending San Francisco’s 25-foot zone could invite a suit by antiabortion activists – which could leave the city on the hook for big legal expenses if they win.
Add San Francisco buffer zone ditherers to those in Portland, Maine, Burlington, Vermont, and Madison, Wisconsin, who have all stopped enforcing their ordinances.
Likewise, New Hampshire’s new 25-foot buffer zone law has been blocked in court.
Meanwhile, the Massachusetts legislature is poised to pass a new buffer zone law, which the attorney for Eleanor McCullen, whose lawsuit against Massachusetts’ first buffer zone law prevailed before the Supreme Court, says is “more draconian” than the original and promises to challenge in court.
[Photos via SFGate.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Where is Mr Peters when you need him? ;)
To be perfectly honest, Madison, WI, never really enforced their ordinance in the first place.
If the shoe was on the other foot, pro-lifers would be screaming bloody murder. Heh – just imagine if there was a “Crystal Pepsi” sign involved…. what a joke.
Hey Planned Parenthood, here is a novel idea: Instead of being hostile to pro-lifers, invite us in. Let us talk to your client. Let her hear what everyone has to offer in the name of real choice. If she decides not to go through with the abortion, she was not a good candidate for one anyway. If she gets the abortion, hey at least we tried. We can meet on friendly terms, and you won’t have to worry about enforcement of those pesky zones. Sure, it might mean a little lost revenue, but it is only 3% of your services. Right?
If the shoe was on the other foot, pro-lifers would be screaming bloody murder. Heh – just imagine if there was a “Crystal Pepsi” sign involved…. what a joke.
Last I checked, pro-lifers weren’t trying to criminalize the Crystal Pepsi trolls’ activities. But of course you knew that.
San Francisco has some beautiful buildings, but that mill ain’t one of them.
Why are the prolifers photographing women going into the clinic? I can see doing this to mill personnel but clients? I don’t see the point.
phillymiss,
That is Planned Parenthood’s spin. Pro-life activists and sidewalk counselors should have a video camera running the entire time they are in front of an abortion clinic as a method of self-protection. Abortion clinic employees have been known to lie about pro-life activities – complain to police that they are trespassing, or assaulting, etc.
It is abortion supporters who do the assaulting, which also needs to be documented on video, for evidence. Otherwise, police may dismiss incidents as “he said, she said.”
And assaults have been known to originate from the entrance of abortion clinics: https://www.jillstanek.com/2013/03/pro-life-videos-of-the-day-grandma-assaulted-outside-abortion-clinic/. You never know.
Pro-lifers keep a camera rolling for the same reason that Planned Parenthood has cameras trained on every person walking into and around their building.
If some pro-bort turns violent (like Mireille Miller-Young did), we need to have evidence to protect ourselves.
Well, to be fair there are a few Army of God whackos that do film women entering the clinic and post it online. But that’s a tiny minority thankfully.
The problem isn’t a clinic “allowing” protesters to speak to women. The problem is women are saying “no”, repeatedly and in some cases running, crying and screaming at these gentle, loving sidewalk “counselors” to go away. Sure, people have a right to protest. Sure, people have a right to try to converse with others. They do not have the right to follow them for blocks, impede their ability to walk down the sidewalk or tell them they are at a clinic that performs abortions when they are at a CPC.
If the woman wants to talk to the anti choice folks not only do I think it is their right, I support them doing so to make sure they have made the best decision for them.
What I do not support is people who think they have some sort of right to “counsel” a woman. When the woman has refused, you aren’t counseling, you are harassing. In any other instance, you would be arrested.
No means no. Go away means go away.
Filming anybody outside a doctor’s office is gross and weird. If somebody filmed me going into my neurologist I would not be happy. Not because I am doing anything wrong, but because anybody who feels the need to film patients entering a medical clinic has issues.
Gross.
Navi says:
July 29, 2014 at 10:01 am
Well, to be fair there are a few Army of God whackos that do film women entering the clinic and post it online. But that’s a tiny minority thankfully.
Exploiting women and killing their children is an atrocity, and it is a mercy that there are not more people who behave atrociously in reaction.
The abortion industry relies on the occasional arsonist or shooter to maintain their myth that all pro-lifers are rude and violent people. Simple truth is that there are millions of pro-life activists in America (a half-million show up in DC at March For Life, every year) — and yet abortion facilities get a shooter or arsonist only once every couple or three years.
That is terrible, yes — but you would get many more instances of violent crime from a random sample of a million Americans. Pro-lifers are far more peaceful than the general public.
Meanwhile, there is a violent assault of an innocent pro-lifer whenever there are more than a few dozen pro-borts gathered in protest.
So a question – does the San Francisco Planned Parenthood clinic have an issue with Pro-life demonstrations? Question isn’t whether they like it or not, are they happening? Because I am a regular (monthly) donor to planned parenthood (NorCal) and I’ve never received any communication as to there being an issue here.
Thanks to anyone who can answer this.